U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–770 PDF 2005

JUSTICE FOR ALL: AN EXAMINATION OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUVENILE JUSTICE

SYSTEM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 28, 2005

Serial No. 109–92

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on October 28, 2005 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland; and Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, Minority Whip, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland ............................................. 20

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L. ........................................................................ 20

Hoyer, Hon. Steny H. ................................................................................ 34

Satterfield, Lee F., presiding judge, District of Columbia Family Court;

Eugene Hamilton, senior judge, District of Columbia Superior Court;

Charles H. Ramsey, chief of police, District of Columbia Metropolitan

Police Department; and Vincent Schiraldi, director, District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Services ............................................................... 42

Hamilton, Eugene ...................................................................................... 58

Ramsey, Charles H. ................................................................................... 77

Satterfield, Lee F. ...................................................................................... 42

Schiraldi, Vincent ...................................................................................... 83

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Prepared statement of Mr. Black ............................................................. 17

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 23

Hamilton, Eugene, senior judge, District of Columbia Superior Court,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 60

Hoyer, Hon. Steny H., Minority Whip, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of .................................. 36

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District

of Columbia, prepared statement of ............................................................ 12

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 111

Ramsey, Charles H., chief of police, District of Columbia Metropolitan

Police Department, prepared statement of ................................................. 80

Satterfield, Lee F., presiding judge, District of Columbia Family Court,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 45

Schiraldi, Vincent, director, District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation

Services, prepared statement of ................................................................... 86

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 7

(1)

JUSTICE FOR ALL: AN EXAMINATION OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUVENILE JUSTICE

SYSTEM

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Davis of Virginia, Issa, Dent, Waxman,

Cummings, Clay, Watson, Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, Higgins,

and Norton.

Also present: Representative Cardin.

Staff present: Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; John Hunter, counsel; Rob White, press secretary, Drew Crockett, deputy director of

communications; Victoria Proctor, senior professional staff member;

Shalley Kim, professional staff member; Teresa Austin, chief clerk;

Kristin Amerling, minority general counsel; Karen Lightfoot, minority senior policy advisor & communications director; Michelle

Ash, minority chief legislative counsel; Mark Stephenson, minority

professional staff member; Earley Green, minority chief clerk;

Cecelia Morton, minority officer manager; and Kim Trinca, minority counsel.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The committee will come to order.

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Justice for All: An Examination of the D.C. Juvenile Justice System.’’ This is a continuation

of the Government Reform Committee’s oversight of the city’s juvenile justice system.

Earlier this year, Police Chief Charles Ramsey testified before

the committee that, in 2004, Metropolitan Police Department officers arrested approximately 2,950 juveniles for crimes ranging

from homicide, robbery, and weapons violations, to various misdemeanor offenses.

The District is the defendant in the Jerry M. class-action lawsuit

filed in 1985 by the D.C. Public Defender Services and the American Civil Liberties Union. The complaint alleged that the District

failed to provide adequate care and rehabilitation services to the

committed youth at the Oak Hill Youth Center.

In July 1986, the parties entered into a Consent Decree, and a

monitor was appointed to assess the District’s compliance. Despite

the existence of the Consent Decree, for many years the city failed

to address the atrocious conditions at Oak Hill, allowing the comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:18 Dec 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24770.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

mitted youth to languish in an overcrowded facility that was unsafe and unhealthy.

Oak Hill has become a symbol of a broken system. Too many of

the city’s young people are finding themselves victims of crime. Too

many of the city’s youth are committing crimes, many of them violent. And too often, those who enter the city’s care are not getting

rehabilitated.

After years of non-compliance and several million dollars in fines,

Mayor Anthony Williams’ administration is continuing its commitment to terminate the city’s involvement in lengthy court cases, as

it has done for D.C. child welfare services in the LaShawn case.

The District averted a complete court takeover when it agreed to

the appointment of an arbiter. In order to comply with the terms

of the Consent Decree, the city must perform a top-to-bottom reorganization of the YSA, the Youth Services Administration. Therefore, YSA was renamed the Youth Rehabilitation Services [YRS],

and elevated to cabinet-level status.

A youth who is arrested in D.C. comes under the auspices of the

Metropolitan Police Department, the D.C. Family Court, and Youth

Rehabilitation Services. Coordination among these agencies is critical.

We hope this hearing will provide a forum to address systemwide problems and review implementation of new initiatives to improve operation of the city’s juvenile justice system. What I don’t

want to see is the District of Columbia juvenile justice system function as a feeder to the adult penal and correctional systems. Kids

should not be sent to languish in a chaotic system that places the

public and the children in danger.

The Post recently reported on the death of Marcel Merritt, a 16-

year-old who had been under the supervision of the District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Services. Marcel was suspected of several killings and robberies, and had been charged twice for gun

possession.

Despite recommendations from Peaceoholics, a non-profit group

that had mentored him, to keep him at a detention center, he was

released to his relatives’ care in August, and then couldn’t be located by District officials. The system simply lost track of Marcel.

The death of Marcel Merritt raises serious concerns regarding the

city’s juvenile justice system. I have written the District; I hope

they can shed some light on this incident.

On the upside, the Post ran an article in August that praised

Vincent Schiraldi, the new Director of the Youth Rehabilitation

Services. In January, the Mayor appointed Mr. Schiraldi to lead

the overhaul of YRS. The department has also made great strides

under his leadership, but further improvements to the system are

needed.

Today, we want to hear about the District’s reform strategies. We

will not only hear from Mr. Schiraldi, but also from Chief Ramsey,

and Judge Satterfield, the presiding judge of the District of Columbia Family Court, and Judge Hamilton, senior judge of the District

Superior Court and former chairman of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon

Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform. I look

forward to an informative discussion.

3

The committee will also examine H.R. 316, a bill introduced by

Congressman Ben Cardin, which provides for the disposition of

Federal property located in Anne Arundel County, MD; a portion

of which is currently used by the District of Columbia as the Oak

Hill juvenile detention facility. I want to welcome Congressman

Cardin and Mr. Hoyer. Both will speak on this proposal today.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

4

5

6

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing to examine the District’s juvenile justice system,

which for years has been plagued with problems. I know that you

are dedicated to finding ways to fix this system.

I believe that any effort to improve the juvenile justice system

must include a focus on preventing youth from entering the system

in the first place. I am pleased to hear that there are new efforts

in the District for early intervention, prevention, and education.

And I look forward to hearing more about them today.

Also, it is imperative that any juvenile justice system deal with

what happens to juveniles who have been committed, upon their

release. After transitioning out of the system, those children, all too

often, are lost.

The District, as well as other jurisdictions, does not have a good

track record with providing a continuum of care for such youth.

Many times, juvenile offenders are released back into the situation

that led them to crime in the first place. We need better training

and education for juveniles while they are in custody, and better

opportunities and aftercare once they are out.

Finally, we need to realize that children are different from

adults, even those children that commit crimes. They have different

needs and ways of being rehabilitated. These children need community-based services and support systems. I understand that the current plan for revamping the District’s juvenile justice system involves creating a number of home-like facilities. I am interested in

hearing how these facilities will work, how many juveniles will be

in those settings, and how many juveniles will remain at the larger

facilities.

In addition to reviewing the overall juvenile justice system run

by the District, I understand that this hearing will also address the

specific issues of the Oak Hill Youth Center in Laurel, MD. Everyone agrees that the current conditions at Oak Hill cannot continue.

Under the District’s plans, the current facilities are due to be torn

down. I believe there is widespread support for that initiative.

The issue is, what happens to the property? The District wants

to build new, smaller District juvenile justice facilities on the same

site. Others have suggested that the District build on other locations. And I am hopeful that all of the interested parties can work

together to resolve this issue. I look forward to hearing the

thoughts of my colleagues from Maryland on this property.

We all share the goals of public safety, and rehabilitation and accountability for young people in the juvenile justice system. Today’s

hearing can bring us closer to those goals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

7

8

9

10

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Norton, any opening statement?

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just state, all Members will have

until the end of the day to submit written statements.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with me on

this hearing concerning what the District and the Federal Government are doing to improve the life chances of children committed

to the city’s juvenile justice system, and the progress the city is

making in meeting court and congressional juvenile justice mandates.

Notwithstanding Home Rule and the District’s responsibility for

its own children, this is an appropriate congressional hearing, because a major part of the juvenile justice system, the D.C. courts,

are Article I courts, fall under Federal jurisdiction; although the

applicable laws are enacted and enforced by the District.

Local and State governments, regardless of the nature and income of their residents, have been significantly unsuccessful in answering the question: What should society do when children commit crimes? Judging by newspaper reports, the District, Maryland,

and Virginia are not exceptions. However, the District, one of

America’s big cities, has more of the conditions that breed not only

juvenile delinquency, but also the serious crimes that children in

cities and suburbs alike commit today.

Regrettably, the District’s facilities themselves have been so inadequate that public and governmental attention have been disproportionately focused on the facilities, more so than on the children. The District has responded by opening a new, first-class facility in the city for juvenile detainees, a very important step in reducing the housing of children who are being detained separately

from those who have been committed.

In addition, the Forest Haven juvenile facility was closed several

years ago. This leaves one facility for detainees and committed

youth, the Oak Hill Youth Center located in Laurel, MD. The committee will be particularly interested in this facility today.

I appreciate the thinking of my good friend and colleague, Representative Ben Cardin, due to testify here today, who has worked

to find a practical way to move Oak Hill from his district, and has

offered some innovative and attractive ideas.

These ideas, however, depend on finding a realistic alternative

site, as I believe he recognizes; notwithstanding that his bill, H.R.

316, contemplates the closure of Oak Hill and the transfer of the

land to the National Park Service and to his district, Anne Arundel

County, MD.

Representative Cardin’s bill seeks a ‘‘win-win,’’ with the bordering National Security Agency paying for the construction of a new

facility. Finding a location in the District, as his bill prefers, or

elsewhere, poses a structural barrier to moving such a bill, however. The District is a small and constricted city whose land is disproportionately occupied by the Federal Government; the major

reason that Congress located the facility outside of the city in the

first place.

I am pleased that today’s hearing presents all involved an opportunity to get this and other ideas on the table for public discussion.

11

This hearing will offer a bonus if it moves us pragmatically to solutions which burden no community, while focusing us on the District’s most disadvantaged children.

These are not children in a state of teenage rebellion typical of

these ages. These children have been cheated out of childhood

itself. Most have been cheated from the beginning, from birth, out

of every child’s birthright: two caring parents, or an extended family. Many are fatherless, have struggling single mothers, or no family; live in high-crime neighborhoods long ago deserted by jobs,

where thugs ply the underground economy that has replaced the

jobs once available to their fathers and grandfathers.

We are all implicated in making a mess of the lives of these children in our country. The bankruptcy of national, State, and local

thinking and approaches is perhaps best shown by the move toward more and more adult sentences, even for small children, and

the outcry by some when the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles

under 18 should not be subjected to the death penalty.

I hope that today’s hearing will help us get beyond where and

how juveniles are housed, to how to keep them out of detention and

commitment, and how to make sure that those who nevertheless

must be committed do not turn the mistakes of childhood into the

crimes of manhood.

I will listen to all of today’s witnesses with intense interest. I am

grateful to each of the witnesses for their work and efforts for the

District, and for coming forward today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton follows:]

12

13

14

15

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First thing, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

this hearing. I think it is a very important hearing. We have two

major priorities at this hearing today. And Congresswoman Norton,

I agree with you that these children in the detention center, whether it is Washington, DC, or anywhere in our country, are very high

priority, one of our highest priorities in the criminal justice system.

And we have to get to these children before they become adults, before they get out into our society, and give them the chance to be

functional members of our community.

We also have another priority here, though. And that is the priority of the land where Oak Hill is located. Just recently, the decision was made to bring over 5,000 jobs to Fort Meade and the NSA

area. This area was chosen because NSA now exists with Fort

Meade. NSA is one of the country’s oldest and largest intelligence

agencies. It plays a critical role in fighting the war against terror,

and also provides real-time intelligence for our war fighters in Iraq

and Afghanistan.

Now, one of the reasons that the commission, the BRAC Commission, decided to bring the jobs into this area is because it had the

ability to grow near NSA and Fort Meade. In the intelligence

arena, it is not only our NSA and our military and the CIA, but

it is also the private sector that works with them and has contracts

with NSA. And they tend to locate near this area.

So we will have a tremendous growth along the 295 corridor, and

Oak Hill is needed as a part of this growth with respect to NSA,

or the private sector that works with NSA. This should be a ‘‘winwin’’ situation for all. The land is valuable enough that we should

be able to sell the land, or whatever we do with the land, and build

a first-class, functional facility for Oak Hill.

The problem and the issue we have to resolve is: Where do we

put the facility? And it is very important that we prioritize where

we are going to put this facility. And we should be able to resolve

this issue by sitting down together and finding out what is best for

our juveniles from Washington, DC, and also for our national security.

I support Mr. Cardin’s H.R. 316. I am glad that both of my

friends from Maryland are here, Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Cardin, and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Yes, ma’am?

Ms. WATSON. Can I make an opening statement?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Yes.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this most important hearing on an issue that has major short and long-term effects on the District of Columbia, and really around the country.

Rehabilitation of our Nation’s youth after they have committed

crimes is vital for them to become law-abiding citizens and make

positive contributions to society.

D.C.’s Youth Rehabilitation Services must operate cohesively and

productively, so that when these youth finish their sentences they

will be ready to face a brighter future.

16

In my home State of California, nearly 6,000 young people are

hospitalized every year for some form of violent injury they receive

on the streets, including assault, child abuse, domestic violence,

and rape. This number does not include incidents inside correctional facilities, where violence happens on a regular basis.

Many youth who commit crimes come from broken homes, disastrous backgrounds; are in need of more than just a program to

change their thought patterns and habits. They need parental support. Many of these youths have never had a parent at home, and

look to the streets to provide their surrogate mothers and fathers.

It is our job as legislators to ensure that whatever crimes they

have committed before entering a correctional institution, they will

not commit them again, and look to become leaders, not followers.

If a youth is arrested by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, and is placed in a juvenile detention facility, that facility

should operate under acceptable standards. It should not be another haven for crime and danger. Correctional institutions should

not be as dangerous as on the streets. Yes, there are youth in their

facilities that have significant problems, but their lives should not

be lost or put in distress while serving their time.

In a time of budget cuts and financial scarcity in all areas of

Government, I know it is extremely hard to have the most elaborate program in these institutions. It is also important to realize

that these are our children—all of them. Yes, they have made mistakes; but they will be a part of this society once they are released.

We want them to leave the rehabilitation facilities rehabilitated;

not worse than they were when they came in.

Mr. Chairman, our goal should be to do whatever we can to orient correctional facilities more toward rehabilitation, and less toward punishment. We must ensure that the medical, psychological,

educational, and vocational needs are met for these youth in D.C.

and elsewhere in our Nation.

And so thank you for your willingness to come, the members of

the panel, and testify. And I appreciate all of your efforts in continuing to make the District of Columbia’s Youth Rehabilitation

Services the best in the Nation and a model for the rest of the Nation. And please let us know what we can do to help in these efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, thank you very much. Again, Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the record.

I would ask unanimous consent that the statement of Bill Black,

the Deputy Director of the National Security Agency, be entered

into the official record. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]

17

18

19

20

Chairman TOM DAVIS. On our first distinguished panel, we have

the Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Congressman from the State

of Maryland, who has legislation that could help remedy this problem; and we have the Honorable Steny Hoyer, distinguished Minority Whip, from the State of Maryland, too.

Mr. Cardin, do you want to start?

STATEMENTS OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND; AND

HON. STENY H. HOYER, MINORITY WHIP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you very

much for conducting this hearing on a very important subject that

involves the juvenile services within the District, but also an 800-

acre-plus piece of land that is located in the Third Congressional

District of Maryland.

I also want to thank Eleanor Holmes Norton for her leadership.

We have had many discussions, and they have all been positive,

and we are going to be working together to try to resolve these

issues. And I concur in her statement.

I want to thank Mr. Ruppersberger, who has part of the area

that we are talking about. The National Security Agency and Fort

Meade are located in the Second Congressional District of Maryland, which Dutch Ruppersberger represents. And I am pleased to

be here with Steny Hoyer, who has been a real leader on these

issues in this region. The three of us represent parts of Anne Arundel County, along with Wayne Gilchrest. So it is in four congressional districts, the county itself.

The legislation which I have introduced, H.R. 316, involves a

piece of land, 800-plus acres, located about 30 miles south of here,

off of the BW Parkway. It is federally owned property. It is adjacent to Fort Meade; it borders Fort Meade.

If you look at the east of the property, you will see that it is

where Fort Meade is located, as well as its major tenant, the National Security Agency. The property is located in the Third Congressional District of Maryland, and on the property is the Oak

Hill Juvenile Detention Facility for the District of Columbia, that

houses today a little bit in excess of 150 children.

The legislation deals with three needs. First, the closing, the relocation, and construction of a new facility for the District of Columbia. The current system, the current facility, is dilapidated, and

does not meet the needs of our juvenile facilities.

The children there are not being properly provided for. Since

1985, there have been court cases pending in regards to Oak Hill.

Since 1986, there has been a Consent Decree that points out the

need for community-based facilities for these children. There have

been 60-plus court orders; millions of dollars of fines.

In 2001, the District of Columbia had a blue ribbon committee

that reported back, recommending the closure of Oak Hill and the

relocation to community facilities within the District. I fully concur

with that blue ribbon commission’s recommendation.

21

In July 2003, the Washington Post ran a series of articles on the

failures at Oak Hill. So there is no question that we need to do

something concerning the facilities. There is a photograph over

there, Mr. Chairman, that shows one of the buildings that is not

being occupied; shows you the condition of the property.

I have been there. I know that Eleanor has been there, and Congressman Hoyer has been there. The property cannot be rehabilitated; the property needs to be knocked down. There is an issue of

community safety. There have been children who have escaped

from the facility. So we need a new facility.

Second, the National Security Agency needs the protection of the

perimeter areas. The Deputy Director, Mr. Black, has issued a

statement for the record that you referred to, indicating that he

wants, and the NSA would like to have, the exclusive use of the

northern sector of the property for the National Security Agency.

That happens to be where the juvenile detention facility is currently located.

And the third area that we are trying to address by this legislation is to deal with the community, the needs of the people in the

immediate vicinity. There is sensitive environmental property that

needs to be dealt with. The Little Patuxent River flows through it

and provides an opportunity for the community. And as Dutch

Ruppersberger has pointed out, we need additional land for private

development to deal with the contractors that work with the National Security Agency and the tenants at Fort Meade.

The recent BRAC decision made yesterday indicates that about

5,000 more jobs, positions, will be coming to the National Security

Agency at Fort Meade. This will generate a need for a lot more private contract work. We need land to locate the private companies

that are going to be working with the National Security Agency to

deal with the intelligence needs of our community.

H.R. 316 deals with all three. I know you have a map in front

of you, so let me just cover it quickly. First, it disposes the land

to three major stakeholders. First, the land that is to the north and

west of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway would be transferred to

the Park Service. The Park Service currently operates the BW

Parkway because of the desire to have a direct access between Fort

Meade and the Nation’s Capital. The land that is to the north and

west is mostly environmentally sensitive land; needs to be kept in

open space and wetlands. And the National Park Service would be

the best entity to handle that.

The property that is to the north of the Little Patuxent River,

marked ‘‘2’’ on the map, would be turned over to the National Security Agency for their exclusive use. This is the land that they believe they need for perimeter security for NSA.

The largest tract is the part that is south of the Little Patuxent

River. That would be transferred to Anne Arundel County, and

used for development.

The reason why this is a ‘‘win-win’’ situation is that the development of the land south of the Little Patuxent River will allow us

to have the resources to build the new facility for the District of

Columbia. That is one of the problems we have had, is finding the

money to do the transfer. So this bill will provide a structure where

we will be able to get the dollars.

22

From a structural point of view, we have the Secretary of the

Army originally paying the cost, but we expect that the money

would be paid for through the development of the land that is

south of the Little Patuxent River.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill will allow us to move forward. It gives us the financing; it disposes of the land properly. We

do need to find a location. I agree with Ms. Norton: we need to find

a location. It may be helpful if we can get involved in that. I don’t

know.

This legislation allows us to move forward, though. It puts in

place the proper use of the land and a method to finance the new

facility, which has been the major hang-up over the last 20 years.

So I think it is a positive step for this legislation to move forward,

and will allow us to say at last we are not going to allow the status

quo to continue to remain as it is. We can’t do it, for the sake of

the children; and it is not fair to the people in Anne Arundel County; and it is not fair for the national security needs of our area.

One last point. Anne Arundel County is committed to putting in

a lateral park along the river for recreational purposes for the community; so that we have, I think, all the stakeholders who are in

support of how we need to move forward in regards to a replacement facility for Oak Hill and the distribution of this very important property.

And I thank you, and I look forward to working with the committee.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Cardin, thank you very much.

Mr. Hoyer.

STATEMENT OF HON. STENY H. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today, I am

here to support H.R. 316, which, as has been said, transfers portions of the 800 acres of Federal property located in Anne Arundel

County to the National Park Service, the Secretary of the Army,

for the use of NSA, and to GSA, who in turn will convey the property to Anne Arundel County for parkland and recreational use.

Additionally, this legislation requires the District of Columbia juvenile detention center known as Oak Hill to be closed, and provides—and this is critical—for construction of a new facility on a

site yet to be determined. Obviously, ‘‘site to be determined’’ is the

difficult part of this equation.

For well over 15 years, problems have plagued the various juvenile facilities located on this property. Originally, Mr. Chairman, as

I am sure everybody in the room knows, they were designed for juveniles who, as Ms. Norton characterized them, were simply juveniles who had behavior problems, as opposed to criminal involvement.

From dilapidated buildings and run-down facilities to rampant

escapes and inadequate treatment programs, the property became

nothing but a problematic neighbor and a public nuisance to the

people in nearby communities; not to mention the challenge that it

was causing to District of Columbia officials.

Working with the District of Columbia officials, promises were

made to address improvements in not just the infrastructure, but

the quality of treatment received by the youths detained in the facilities and the security measures offered. Again, the security

measures were inadequate, because the facility was originally designed for essentially what we would call children in need of supervision, as opposed to children who had been involved in possible

criminal activity, either detained to determine their involvement,

or having been found to be involved.

Many of the most troublesome programs were shut down, and

youths transferred to more adequate placements. However, when I

represented this area—and I do not now—but when I represented

this area, Cedar Knoll was the particular focus. And Mr. Chairman, I started to call it ‘‘Cedar Sieve,’’ and the reason for that is

it simply was not designed to hold the types of young people that

were being held at that facility.

However, the Oak Hill facility remains. Security concerns continue, and the youth of the District of Columbia are still not receiving the treatment they need or the environment to be held either

pre or post-finding.

I am encouraged by the advances made by Mayor Williams and

his administration over all the juvenile justice system. It is a difficult task, and I want to congratulate them for addressing it.

Making Youth Rehabilitation Services a cabinet-level position,

and placing Mr. Schiraldi in charge of revamping all of the juvenile

services programs, shows a strong commitment, in my opinion, to

do what is right to assure that every effort is made to modernize

35

services and establish an effective treatment program for incarcerated young people.

With the commitment of everyone involved to build a new, stateof-the-art facility, we have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman: an opportunity to provide appropriate housing, sound treatment, and the

security measures needed to reassure the public. We must take this

opportunity to work together to find the most suitable location for

such a facility, while assuring that the Federal land involved is

used in the most appropriate and cost-effective manner.

As my colleague, Mr. Cardin, stated, this plan offers options to

the many stakeholders involved. And I want to congratulate him

for working closely with Ms. Norton, as I have in the past, to solve

what is a very difficult problem. It is easy to demagogue about

these issues. It is difficult to solve them. But we can do so, working

together.

Mr. Cardin’s plan offers the Fort Meade community the space

needed for the population increases brought on by BRAC, as referred to by Mr. Ruppersberger, who represents this area of our

State; NSA, the property it needs to continue its important work

and maintain security; and Anne Arundel County, space for park

and recreation use. And most importantly, Mr. Chairman, the

funding for a secure treatment option to serve the District of Columbia’s youth and the District of Columbia citizens.

Closing Oak Hill is the right thing to do, and I look forward to

working to develop a plan, and a solution, which serves the needs

of the District, its youth, and the community at large. And I thank

you for this opportunity.

I have a longer statement, which I will submit for the record.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, it will be entered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Steny H. Hoyer follows:]

36

37

38

39

40

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you both. Let me just say, this

brings back the days of Lorton Prison; the same kinds of issues

that we had with the city, and it took us years to work something

out. It is constructive. I think the key is to find an alternative. If

we can find an alternative spot, I think we can bring all the parties

together. You are providing a way that we could get funding, that

we could take this asset, turn it into something that could produce

some revenue so that the city wouldn’t be disadvantaged. But it is

a question of finding a spot.

And I know this committee looks forward to working with you on

that. I know Ms. Norton would work with you. And we could try

to make this a ‘‘win-win.’’ But the legislation is a first start.

Any thoughts on that? Do you have any thoughts, in terms of

where else you can locate kids? Unlike the Lorton situation—and

there was a youth component to that—but we moved those prisoners into the Federal prison system. We did put a mile radius, so

they wouldn’t be too far away. But with kids it has to be a little

closer. And there is just no immediate sites in the city for this, it

seems.

Mr. CARDIN. My understanding is that the size of the facility is

modest, as far as the need of how much land is actually needed.

I don’t want to minimize the challenge. I know that there have

been lands that have been made available to the District through

this committee, and I am not prepared to try to designate any specific site. But I really do think we should look at the properties

that could be made available.

The city administration has told me there are some zoning issues

with properties, and other issues. But I think we need to take a

look at it because, obviously, all the reports have shown that the

best location would be closest to the families within the District,

that is an important part of the equation here. So I think that

needs to be, by far, the first order of business, is to make an effort

to try to find——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me interrupt. I think that is constructive. Let me interject something. The Federal Government has a lot

of property in the area, a lot of it surplus. We are transferring a

piece of that, or we are in the process of transferring a piece of

that, to the city in cooperation with the administration. But if we

can get an inventory of all Federal properties, working with Mr.

Hoyer and the other affected Members, maybe we can find an appropriate transfer that works in this case.

The Federal Government has some responsibility here, with our

oversight with the District, and maybe there would be an appropriate transfer on that. And I think we would have to look at all

of these.

We are in the process of trying to get a complete data base of

all Federal properties in Washington, and see what is utilized,

what isn’t utilized, what could be utilized, and see if there is a way

around this. But I think you have identified what appears to be a

major problem; and try to come up with a constructive solution.

Ms. NORTON. If I could just say——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Go ahead.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Because I don’t have a question. I simply want to thank my colleagues for doing what they always do;

41

which is working with me to try to find a solution. And they have

handled this very difficult problem, it seems to me, in the way that

this region does in fact operate.

I just want to say, just for the record, that the District was not

responsible for putting this facility in someone else’s district. And

I could not sympathize more with the Members. The District did

not have Home Rule when this decision was made. And I don’t

think the Congress made it because it was punishing Maryland, either. I think it had to do with available land. And very frankly, the

Federal Government has taken the lion’s share of the land that is

not used for residential use or is not used for commercial use.

But I join the chairman in saying I still believe that Mr. Cardin’s

idea is a very fruitful idea. The major problem you have in these

kinds of things usually is how you are going to get the money to

do it. Now we have a question of, ‘‘Where are you going to put it?’’

And we obviously know we don’t need all of that huge space out

there in Laurel, MD. But, you know, Congress put it out there in

that huge space; we didn’t do it.

There ought to be a way, as the chairman says, with all the Federal land all around this region, to find a smaller space where we

could accommodate this facility, and move it out of a district where

people have every right to say, ‘‘Why is it in my district?’’ So I

thank you, both of you, for the way you have handled this matter.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. And Mr. Ruppersberger, before I recognize you, let me just say this isn’t just about where it

is located; this is about the kids. This is a program that is not

working for the kids, and it has been documented now for over 15

years. So that remains a huge problem. And perhaps a locational

change could add to new management and giving these kids a shot.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for

agreeing to work with us. And a lot of issues in this town can’t be

resolved, unfortunately; but this is an issue that we all, if we put

our heads together, can do the right thing. And I think the children

will benefit, and our national security will also benefit.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I know NSA submitted a statement. Basically, the key to this statement is that they want to make sure

there is a security buffer zone for Fort Meade-NSA, for national security. And that is really most of the extent of their testimony.

And Mr. Cardin, it is a good plan, and you are a smart man.

[Laughter.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You can take that and run with it.

Mr. CARDIN. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Do any other Members have questions?

[No response.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If not, thank you both.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We will take a 3-minute recess, as we get

ready for the next panel.

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We are ready to resume our second panel.

Without objection, Congressman Cardin will be permitted to sit in.

It is a distinguished panel. We have the Honorable Lee

Satterfield, presiding judge, District of Columbia Family Court; the

Honorable Eugene Hamilton, the senior judge of the Superior

42

Court—Judge, nice to see you again—Charles Ramsey, the chief of

police for the Metropolitan Police Department, and no stranger to

this committee; and Vincent Schiraldi, the director of the District

of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Services. And this is your inaugural visit here, Mr. Schiraldi. We appreciate your being here.

It is our policy that all witnesses are sworn before you testify,

so if you would, just rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Judge Satterfield, we will start with you. And we appreciate your

being here today.

STATEMENTS OF LEE F. SATTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT; EUGENE HAMILTON, SENIOR JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR

COURT; CHARLES H. RAMSEY, CHIEF OF POLICE, DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND

VINCENT SCHIRALDI, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

YOUTH REHABILITATION SERVICES

STATEMENT OF LEE F. SATTERFIELD

Judge SATTERFIELD. Good morning. Thank you. Chairman Davis,

Congresswoman Norton, other members of the committee, thank

you for the invitation to testify today about the role of the D.C. Superior Court’s Family Court in the District’s juvenile justice system.

The Family Court has jurisdiction to hold youth in secure detention prior to trial, to release youth with conditions pre-trial, to conduct a trial and, if the youth is found involved—which is the equivalent of guilty in the criminal system—to sentence him or her.

There are only two sentencing options available to Family Court

judges: a judge can place the child or youth on probation, or commit the youth to the custody of the city.

Under current D.C. law, Family Court judges cannot sentence

youth to a period of incarceration in a secure facility, but may only

commit them to the city’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation

Services. At that point, even if the youth violates his probation conditions repeatedly, or commits other crimes, even serious or violent

crimes, the judge has no control over where the youth is placed. We

submit to you that this distracts from the accountability that we

are trying to instill in young people and children in this case.

Our juvenile delinquency caseload represents about 25 percent of

the Family Court caseload. One of the Family Court’s goals, as set

forth in the transition plan required by the Family Court Act and

submitted to Congress in April 2002, is to provide early intervention and opportunities for juveniles charged with offenses to enhance rehabilitation and promote public safety. Prevention, public

safety, accountability, and rehabilitation are key goals of the Family Court. Continued accountability directly to the sentencing judge

is a key element in public safety and successful rehabilitation.

Our Family Court Social Services Division plays a vital role in

our response to juvenile delinquency, and is responsible for supervising juvenile offenders who are pre-trial, or those serving a probationary sentence and that are not committed to the city’s care.

43

Our division currently supervises about 1,900 juvenile offenders, a

number that represents the majority of youth in the juvenile justice

system.

I have submitted for the record a manual that outlines how the

Court Social Services supervises youth, and the role that they play

in accountability and keeping the community safe.

Also, in my written testimony, I review the juvenile delinquency

guidelines that were established by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges for the purpose of improving court

practices in juvenile cases. And I discuss those goals, and how we

meet those goals, in my written testimony. In the interest of time,

I will not go over them now.

I would like to tell you about a new program that we have implemented in Family Court just last week, and it relates to truancy.

As you know, the short-term consequence of truancy is often delinquency, and the long-term consequences of truancy are also incarceration, illiteracy, and unemployment.

We have launched just last week in the Garnet-Patterson Middle

School a program to divert youth out of the system, or away from

the system. This new program is a Truancy Court diversion program for middle-school students, and was developed by the Family

Court in partnership with the District of Columbia Public Schools;

the District of Columbia School Board; the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders; and the Child and Family Services Agency.

Students who have more than 15 unexcused absences and who

could be referred to Family Court for prosecution are eligible to

participate, with their parents or guardians. This is a voluntary

program. The goals of the program are to increase attendance, improve grades, and improve behavior. In addition to the students

and parents, other participants include the teacher, attendance

counselor, and the family advocates who are social workers.

I conduct hearings at the school weekly, and the social workers

work with the families to provide services that strengthen the families, to ensure that the students remain in school.

I also want to talk just briefly about parental participation because, as you know, if you want to help children, you must help

their parents. And sometimes, helping parents means holding them

accountable.

Involving parents is a key part of the Family Court’s juvenile justice prevention and intervention response. We enter participation

orders in just about every juvenile case, unless it is not in the best

interests of the child. In 2005, we entered participation orders in

91 percent of the cases: requiring parents to participate in the rehabilitation process with their children; requiring parents to participate in parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, and monitor their children’s curfew and school attendance.

Let me just conclude by saying that our goals for the future are

to continue to sustain our current programs; to launch an adolescent girls’ program for girls that are on probation; to continue our

partnership with MPD in gang intervention; to open drop-in centers for youth to receive services and be closely monitored in the

community; and to acquire global positioning system technology, so

44

that we can better monitor the movement of youths to provide for

our juvenile probation officers.

I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I welcome any

questions that you may have.

[NOTE.—The District of Columbia Superior Court, Family Court

report entitled, ‘‘Court Social Services, a Division of the Family

Court,’’ may be found in committee files.]

[The prepared statement of Judge Satterfield follows:]

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Judge Hamilton, good to have you back.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE HAMILTON

Judge HAMILTON. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ms.

Norton, and other members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be

here this morning to address this very timely and critical subject

of juvenile justice in the District of Columbia.

I am privileged to be here today as a result of having served as

chairman of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety

and Juvenile Justice Reform. This was a commission which was appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the Mayor

asked us to offer policy recommendations.

More specifically, we were to assess delinquency prevention

strategies and explore model programs; identify strengths and

weaknesses in rehabilitative and supportive services and programs;

explore the research on youth violence and substance abuse; examine how our current institutions were working; and develop strategies for serving children and youth in their neighborhoods and

communities.

The Mayor issued an explicit call for the commission to formulate

a vision and a seamless network of youth service ideals that treat

children as children. This is an approach, Mr. Chairman, with

which I fully agreed, and I was happy to devote time and energy

to that very important task.

The commission completed its study, and issued a very comprehensive study of the juvenile delinquency system in the District

of Columbia. The commission made a series of very, very specific

recommendations, including time lines within which it was hoped

that these recommendations would be accomplished.

I should note, and am pleased to note at this time, that many

of the commission’s recommendations have now found their way

into legislation of the District of Columbia, in the Omnibus Juvenile Justice Act of 2004, which was enacted into law in March of

this year. This legislation, which seeks to codify many of the commission’s recommendations, is based on research and study and a

broad, balanced, and representative inquiry.

I should note that this legislation is in some important respects

inconsistent with the recommendations of the commission; in that

it allows for the transfer of more children out of the juvenile justice

system and into the adult criminal system. This is diametrically

opposed to the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission.

The commission’s position on this was that the rules should not be

relaxed for the transfer of children from the juvenile system into

the adult system.

The commission also recommended that the Oak Hill facility be

closed. Now, the recommendation of the commission was not just

that the present Oak Hill facility be closed; but that the present

Oak Hill facility be closed, and a new, state-of-the-art facility be

built on that particular site. The two went hand in hand, because

you can’t close a secure commitment facility unless and until you

have provided for a replacement of that secure commitment facility

which is closed.

59

Everybody agrees that Oak Hill has outlived its usefulness. It is

not serving the rehabilitative purposes of juveniles within the District of Columbia and, of course, it should be closed. The omnibus

legislation which was enacted in March of this year provides that

it be closed and that a new facility be constructed on the site.

We must understand that the Blue Ribbon Commission recommended that the present facility be replaced with a new, stateof-the-art, secure facility at the present campus, and that this facility be consistent with the Missouri model.

Now, any other site must offer all of the resources of the Oak

Hill site: open space; fresh air; and it must be removed at a reasonable distance from the District of Columbia, but it must remain accessible by family, friends, and treatment providers. H.R. 316, unfortunately, does not address this concern.

The District of Columbia can now accomplish the Blue Ribbon

Commission’s objective of moving away from institutionalizing children in a non-rehabilitative environment by providing for the construction of a new, state-of-the-art facility at the present campus,

or some other location which offers all of the resources that the

present campus offers.

And those resources are very, very important. It is not just a

building. It is not just a brick building. It is not just a residential

facility. But it is a residential facility in an appropriate setting.

And I cannot emphasize that too much.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a full statement, and I ask

that it be attached to the record and made a part of the record in

this matter. And of course, I am willing to answer any questions

that any members of the committee might have. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Judge Hamilton follows:]

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Judge, thank you very much.

Chief Ramsey, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. RAMSEY

Chief RAMSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Norton, and other members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony concerning the District of Columbia’s juvenile justice system. Juvenile crime is a serious concern

today, and it will continue to be so in the future, as the juvenile

population is expected to increase by 24 percent over the next two

decades.

The Metropolitan Police Department is one of many entities—

public, private, and non-profit—that compose D.C.’s juvenile justice

system. While the MPD has unique responsibilities within the system, we certainly share in the overarching goals of protecting our

youth and protecting our communities through prevention, intervention, and enforcement strategies.

Our agency may have primary responsibility for enforcement, but

we do work very hard—and, I believe, quite successfully—on a

number of prevention and intervention initiatives, as well. Let me

provide just a few examples.

In partnership with the faith community, the Metropolitan Police

Boys and Girls Clubs, and other community leaders, our department offers a range of recreational and social opportunities for

young people; in particular, those from economically challenged

families and communities.

This past summer, we operated summer camps in our police districts, and we once again staffed Camp Brown in partnership with

the Boys and Girls Clubs. Along with our clergy police community

partnerships, we held ‘‘40 Days of Increased Peace’’ this summer,

a series of family crime prevention and community building events.

And individual police districts conducted a variety of programs,

from athletic leagues to fashion shows. Our objective is to provide

opportunities for young people to explore and experience positive,

new activities in a safe environment.

In the area of intervention, our department is in the process of

revamping and expanding our innovative OPAT program, ‘‘Operation Prevent Auto Theft.’’ Auto theft in D.C. is a serious crime, in

and of itself. Auto theft and unauthorized use of a vehicle are also

gateway crimes for our youth. Involvement in these offenses often

signals more serious criminal activity in the future.

OPAT takes first-time offenders and provides them with intensive education and intervention services, focusing on community

impact and their own lives. To date, there have been 95 participants in the program; with 10 being rearrested for auto theft, and

another 12 rearrested on other charges. And while our goal is zero

recidivism, these initial numbers are at least encouraging.

Other intervention strategies include increased enforcement of

curfew and truancy laws. So far this year, MPD officers have

picked up more than 2,700 curfew violators, or over twice the total

from all of 2004. In addition, officers have picked up more than

2,000 truants this calendar year, also an increase. Our goal in both

areas is to get young people off the street during times when they

are most vulnerable to crime, either as victims or offenders.

78

This school year, the MPD also assumed management responsibility for security inside D.C. public schools. This reform is not

only helping to enhance security inside the schools; it is also providing for additional coordination between our school safety and

community crime-fighting efforts.

In the area of enforcement, our department’s activity remains

high, and highly focused on priority crime types. Last year, MPD

officers arrested close to 3,000 juveniles for a variety of offenses,

an increase of 15 percent from 2003. This year, our arrest numbers

are tracking at about the same level as 2004, slightly below last

year’s level.

We are paying particular attention to the crimes of auto theft,

UUV, and robbery. Citywide, robbery and weapons violations are

the only serious crimes that are on the rise this year among juveniles. We have had an 11 percent increase in robbery arrests so far

this year, and a 171⁄2 percent increase in weapons violations arrests. These increases have been fueled, in part, by juvenile offenders, in terms of the crimes themselves. We are targeting these

crimes through a number of enforcement initiatives, and have arrested several juvenile suspects in recent weeks.

Probably the most encouraging statistical trend we have seen

this year is a sharp decline in the number of juvenile homicide victims. So far this year, there have been 10 young people, age 17 or

younger, murdered in D.C. That compares to 23 at this time last

year. And of the 10 victims this year, three were young children

or infants who were killed by family members or other caregivers.

Ten juvenile homicides is still 10 too many, in my mind, but we

have begun to see a reversal of last year’s particularly violent

trend.

For our juvenile justice system to be even more effective in the

future, there must be even greater cooperation and information

sharing among all of the entities involved. This issue has come into

sharp focus in recent days, with the homicide of 16-year-old Marcel

Merritt and subsequent information about his criminal activity and

detention history over the past few years.

Currently, the Metropolitan Police Department is not receiving

juvenile justice information that I believe would assist us in our

mission of protecting young people and safeguarding communities.

For example, when young offenders are assigned to group homes or

given home detention, I feel strongly that our police officers have

a right to know who these young people are, where they have been

sent, what their juvenile history is, and any conditions on their release such as curfews, stay-away orders, and the like.

Currently, our department is not receiving this information, because it is considered part of the social files on juveniles. And let

me assure you that everyone in our department is not interested

in seeing psychological evaluations, treatment plans, or similar information contained in these files. But we should have access to

basic detention and criminal history information that is essential

in helping us protect our neighborhoods.

Our police officers cannot be expected to enforce a juvenile’s conditions of release, if we don’t even know what those conditions are.

We should also be informed immediately when juveniles abscond

79

from any facility in the juvenile justice system and when there is

any change in a juvenile’s status.

In the interest of protecting our communities—and as in the case

of Marcel Merritt, protecting young people, themselves—our police

officers should have access to basic and limited information about

juvenile offenders in our neighborhoods. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Chief Ramsey follows:]

80

81

82

83

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Schiraldi.

STATEMENT OF VINCENT SCHIRALDI

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman

Norton, and distinguished committee members——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We are in the middle of voting. Your entire statement is entered. Go ahead.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. OK. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before

you and highlight the department’s efforts to enact badly needed

reforms in the District’s juvenile justice system.

As you are aware, in 1986, the District entered into a Consent

Decree in Jerry M. v. the District of Columbia. Over the past 19

years, the District has made incremental, but not significant,

progress, in efforts to reform both its locked facilities and community-based programs. As such, when I took this position on, we

were faced with enormous amounts of reform required, really, in

every aspect of the department’s operation; from deplorable conditions, to inadequate community-based programming, to poor decisionmaking.

Although faced with a sizable demand for reform, we have decided not to aim low in our efforts and just meet bare Constitutional standards. Instead, we are trying to create the kind of system that any of us would want if our own children were in trouble.

Though our reform efforts have included many strategies, I want

to condense my testimony and highlight two areas: secure custody

for Oak Hill youth; and development of a continuum of care. These

reforms come right out of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s report,

and I am honored to be able to build off of Judge Hamilton’s work

and the work of that good group.

Anyone who is familiar with D.C.’s juvenile justice system has

heard of the horrible conditions at Oak Hill. The facility is outdated, run down, and ill equipped to provide an environment that

is both safe and rehabilitative.

In September, the Mayor submitted plans for a replacement facility that should be completed in about 21⁄2 years; which will provide

us with the tools to eliminate the co-mingling of detained and committed youth, and create a more rehabilitative and home-like, while

still secure, environment.

When I began as director in January, the District was accumulating millions of dollars in fines. With the opening of the new

Youth Services Center and a modest reduction in the overall committed population, I am happy to say that fines for exceeding population limits ceased accruing by March.

Importantly, as Oak Hill’s population declined slightly, serious

juvenile crime declined as well; a phenomenon that is occurring not

just here, but around the country, including in Maryland, in Virginia, and in California, where several members of this committee

come from.

For example, in the first 6 months of 2005, while the population

of youth in locked custody in D.C. fell by 23 percent, serious juvenile arrests declined by 26 percent, and the number of youths

killed was cut in half, as the chief just mentioned.

Congressman Waxman released a report last year that we built

off of. And basically, what it showed was that kids were languishVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:18 Dec 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24770.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
84

ing with mental health problems in a lot of these training schools

and correctional facilities, and that they needed to accelerate their

placement into rehabilitative programming. Essentially, the reduction of population of Oak Hill could almost exclusively be accounted

for by just simply moving kids more quickly into the programs that

they were going to go to anyway.

So right now, Oak Hill houses about 80 committed youth on any

given day. The replacement facility that we are proposing will be

36 beds, configured as three home-like, 12-bed units. We also plan

to renovate an existing 24-bed unit; for a total committed capacity

of 60 beds, approximately 20 fewer than the current population. We

are creating far more than 20 community-based slots to absorb this

additional population and to provide better services to the youths

who are already in the community.

As we plan the replacement of Oak Hill, the committee is interested, of course, in our position on H.R. 316. Right now, as was

mentioned earlier, we have about 888 acres up at Oak Hill, up on

the Laurel campus. We are only sitting on about 20, 25 of those

acres. It strikes me that there is plenty of land for us to accommodate the multiple interests that exist up there.

We do need some place to put a secure facility, but we only need

about 25 out of 888 acres. And we are certainly willing to discuss

with the other significant players some mutually beneficial options.

The replacement facility will accomplish little without new approaches to service delivery, as Judge Hamilton pointed out. Even

before we replace Oak Hill, we intend to dramatically change the

way we do business, creating a therapeutic milieu modeled on the

approach used now for nearly two decades in the State of Missouri.

This Missouri Model is widely acclaimed right now, because it

puts kids into small, home-like environments. The people running

those facilities—if you are running a 36-bed facility, you know the

life story of every single kid in that facility. And that dramatically

reduces the potential for bureaucratic foul-ups, and dramatically

increases the potential for rehabilitation.

Missouri, for example, has not been sued in the last 15 years

with its model, and its recidivism rate—the feeder unit that was

talked about earlier—the recidivism rate in Missouri is one-fourth

the recidivism rate for D.C.

Now, the lion’s share of our kids do not get locked up at Oak

Hill—or any facility, for that matter—just like in most other

States. The lion’s share of the kids involved in D.C.’s juvenile justice system go to the community. Too often, juvenile justice systems

actually jeopardize public safety by over-focusing on their locked

custody and neglecting the programs monitoring most of their

youth.

In order to tackle detention reforms this summer, we joined with

our partners in the courts—Judge Satterfield co-chairs this committee—and the police—Inspector Overton is on this committee—

defense, probation, and the community, prosecutors, to form the

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative.

This initiative is an initiative that has been experimented with

around the country, including in Maryland, Virginia, and California. And working collaboratively with key decisionmakers, JDAI

has been able to reduce the unnecessary use of detention in those

85

jurisdictions; lower costs; increase the use of alternatives; and most

importantly, reduce crime, rearrests, and failures to appear. In

Chicago, for example, the average daily population in detention declined by 37 percent, while failures to appear and juvenile prosecutions were both cut by more than half.

On the committed side, we believe we will be able to best address

public safety when we, one, humanely confine those youth who

need to be locked up and, two, create service plans that fit the

strengths and needs of our young people; rather than fitting them

into our bureaucratically predetermined slots.

To move in this new direction, we are creating several promising

programs which have been researched by OJJDP and found proven

to reduce juvenile delinquency. The purpose of our continuum is to

guarantee that, once a child’s needs and strengths have been assessed, that child will have access to the proper complement of

services necessary to put him on the road to success.

So far, 89 percent and 96 percent of the youth who have gone

through our multi-systemic therapy program and our evening reporting center, respectively, have not been rearrested.

This Sunday, the Washington Post featured an article on a youth

who was violently murdered, who, himself, was suspected of committing several violent murders. The Post reported that he had

been in our care, and was in abscondence status when he was murdered. This youth’s murder, and the tragic crimes he is alleged to

have committed, only highlight that reform does not happen overnight; there is no magic bullet or pill one can take to fix what has

been broken for two decades.

As you are aware, and as I discussed with your staff prior to this

hearing, confidentiality restrictions preclude me from discussing

the specifics of his case. However, the article points to areas where

our department needs reform.

In fact, prior to this tragic case, DYRS had initiated a number

of steps to directly address deficiencies in the areas of properly and

legally revoking youths’ after care when they were failing on community release; of pursuing absconders and getting them back

under our supervision; of adequately planning for youths’ return to

the community; and as mentioned earlier, creating the kind of support and supervision in the community that will both closely monitor and rehabilitate youth in our care.

The promise for reform in D.C., and the stakes for that reform,

are both incredibly high. The time is ripe for us to bring together

best practices from around the country, work with local stakeholders to gain their acceptance, and carefully but forcefully implement

those practices for the betterment of both public safety and the

welfare of our young people.

That is the job I have been tasked with, and I intend to fulfill

it with both integrity and a sense of urgency that I believe it will

take to finally fulfill the promise of reform that so many have

wanted for so long. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiraldi follows:]

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, thank you very much. We only have

5 minutes. Mr. Cardin, do you have any questions you would like

to try to get in a couple of minutes, or will you come back?

Mr. CARDIN. No, I would just take a couple of seconds.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Sure.

Mr. CARDIN. Just to say, in regards to the location, it seems to

me you are taking—I agree with everything that has been said

here. You are taking a pragmatic approach on a location where, if

you really want a residential facility, it would be better if it were

in a residential type of area, rather than across from Fort Meade

itself. So I think there is room here that we could work together,

and I hope we will be able to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Let me just say, we have two

votes. And what I think I will do is, instead of recessing and coming back, and holding you here, I have a couple of questions I want

to ask, and Ms. Norton is going to ask them for me for the record.

And then I will allow her to sit in the chairman’s seat and preside. However, she has promised me she won’t pass any bills, here.

[Laughter.]

But she will preside and ask questions. I am just going to ask

this. The median time between a juvenile trial and sentencing is

43 days, as I understand it, Judge Satterfield. What has to be done

during that time? Is that amount of time typical among jurisdictions? How often are delays beyond the 15-day sentencing required? And do they get credit for that time?

Judge SATTERFIELD. In our system, they don’t get credit for any

time, because we don’t control, as I say, once they are sentenced

or committed to the city, how long they stay in jail if they are incarcerated. We do control how long they may stay supervised by

the city. We can restrictively commit them to 21 years.

In terms of the time period, there are a lot of factors that have

gone into delays in the time period. A lot of information is being

collected about the youth: evaluations, psychological evaluations,

psychiatric evaluations. Sometimes they take a long time. Often,

the youth’s lawyer may request a continuance to gather more information, as well.

We are starting to collect the reasons why there are delays. I

mean, I can tell you anecdotally why we think there are delays; but

we are starting to actually collect—electronically, we are going to

collect the reasons why, so that we can report more accurately as

to why there are some delays in the going to sentencing in these

cases.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. I am going to turn it over to

Ms. Norton. She has some questions from me. It is all on the

record, and we will read it. But I think, rather than keep you here

while we go back, this works for everybody, to keep the record complete.

Again, I just want to thank everybody for coming here today. Mr.

Schiraldi, thanks for being here. It is your first time, but we will

probably see you again.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Go ahead, Eleanor.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Do you want to sit in the big chair?

96

Ms. NORTON. Why not?

[Pause.]

Ms. NORTON [presiding]. In a Congress which is storied about

being divided, it says something about the trust between these two

Members that he says, ‘‘Eleanor, sit in my chair.’’ He doesn’t think

I will seize power.

The chairman had one question that he wanted to ask. Let me

ask his first. It is for Judge Hamilton. It may be for Judge

Satterfield, too. You make the point that Superior Court has not

been given the authority to enter orders for the appropriate placement and treatment of committed youths. Why do you believe that

the District has not given this authority to the court? What is the

practice in other States? If the court had this authority, what impact would it have on the court’s resources?

Judge HAMILTON. Well, I think it is really sort of a historical territorial situation, so far as the District is concerned. It is rather

jealous of its ability to dictate the placement and treatment for

children after they have been committed by the court to the District of Columbia.

But I think it is a real impediment in securing the rehabilitation

of children, because without the ability of the court to order placement and treatment, there is no accountability in the Department

of Youth Rehabilitation Services, or in the old YSA. And I think it

is a real impediment in obtaining real, actual rehabilitation.

Ms. NORTON. So what is done in other States? I mean, is this

typical, or is this a unique District practice?

Judge HAMILTON. Well, in most other States, the courts do have

varying degrees of authority to order treatment and placement.

And it varies from State to State, as to the amount of authority

that the courts have in that regard. There is no uniform pattern

in that regard.

But here in the District of Columbia, as a result of this legislation which was passed in March of this year, it makes it absolutely

clear that the court can enter no order with respect to treatment

or placement. And I think that is regrettable.

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Schiraldi might want to comment on the

reason for this.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Sure.

Ms. NORTON. I am sure there is some rational reason for it.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Much of this happened before my arrival. I actually thought that, prior to the legislation, there was an appeals

court case called ‘‘In Re: P.S.’’—but somebody who is a lawyer can

check me on that one—that essentially stripped the courts of their

ability to direct placements, and gave that to the executive branch.

It was a separation-of-powers issue, I think, which predated me.

The States are all over the board on this. And I don’t think that

the research would bear out anything. You have departments that

do this well and poorly; you have judges that do this well and poorly. I think the thought behind the P.S. decision was that the judges

sentence; the executive branch executes.

In Juvenile Court, the execution of a sentence can range from

maintaining the kid in locked custody, to putting him in residential

treatment. I can live with it either way. Whatever laws you guys

give me, I am going to try to do the best I can.

97

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know if Judge Satterfield has any view on

that.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Yes, I do. The City Council in 1993 passed

a law that stripped the court of that authority. And it was not enforced until a Court of Appeals decision came out in, I think it was,

2000 or 2001, in the In Re: P.S., that they are talking about.

Our view as judges is that if I get the information about the

child, I may try the case; I may hear from the victims; I may see

the parent of this child going through the system under our ‘‘one

judge, one family’’ process. And I get a lot of information.

If I place the child on probation, that child knows that, if I revoke probation, there is very little I can do. I can commit to the

city, and then it is a decision made by the city, whether they release the child right away or not. So there is no accountability

there for those kinds of reasons. I can try a murder case, a child

who killed someone in the community, and I will have no control

over, as a judge, where that child goes, once the sentencing occurs.

This is not any knock on the current administration or what they

do, but the point is, what we are subject to is the city, only, deciding, ‘‘This child should go here; should go there.’’ You may get an

administration that wants to release every child; you may get an

administration that wants to hold every child in jail. The city is

subject, as you know, to lawsuits and caps and those kinds of concerns. The judges don’t have those concerns, because we have to

look at the facts and so forth. And this is not impugning anybody

in the city. It is just a fact, a reality. That is the way it exists now.

Ms. NORTON. What I take from this is, there is no established

‘‘best practice.’’ And it is something that intrigues me, if in fact

people are all over the map on it. I can think of reasons why you

would want to give flexibility to the executive, but I can also think

of reasons why the accountability question would be important. I

can think of reasons why you wouldn’t want to subject children to

the differences among judges, based on their view of punishment.

So I just don’t know. And I guess that is why we have a Home

Rule government. So I am going to have to ask that, as you look,

Mr. Schiraldi, at the District’s juvenile justice system, that you remember it is a system, and that this question has been raised here,

and it is an important one that I think needs to be understood.

Let me ask just a few questions. I am interested in this whole

continuum of care; except, as far as I am concerned, the continuum

of care begins way before a child is brought to court. And I hope

that ‘‘continuum of care’’ does not become one of these slogans like

we have up here. That is what it is; it is a slogan, because it is

so hard to make it happen.

I know that Judge Hamilton, who has worked with me on my

Commission on Black Men and Boys—he is on the advisory commission—knows that I believe that the problem is very deep. And

therefore, I am interested in continuum of care, and to see what

that means.

For example, I am looking at Mr. Schiraldi’s testimony, at page

7. And he talks about some of what they are doing under this continuum notion, beginning to do: 16 multi-systemic therapy slots,

where a good percentage, 89 percent, of the youth have gone

through the program since its inception. Then he talks about an

98

evening reporting center which is operated in the Latin American

Youth Center, with 30 slots.

This is my question. I know what kids we are talking about. It

is one thing to talk about kids who go through a program. It is another thing to posit the circumstances of many of these kids: going

back in the same community that produced the problem in the first

place; single parent, or no parent; and certainly no father often, if

it is an African-American child born in this country today. That is

to say, 70 percent are born to never-married women.

These are things, straight-out, that any system that deals with

our children has to face. That is one of the reasons we are working

with the Black Men and Boys Commission.

So my assumption is, if I were operating one of these centers, I

would not assume parents. And if I assumed a parent, I would understand that I am dealing often with a single parent, herself often

poor and disadvantaged, who lives in a community where it is very

hard to protect your children from the criminal element that swims

around them. So my assumption would essentially be no parent;

even though there might well be some parents there.

And therefore, my question is, with respect to these kinds of continuum notions, is there anything approaching—I hate to use this

word, but I am so naive as to how the system works—approaching

the kind of system we use for people who have been in jail and get

out, a probationary system where, essentially, the person is pretty

much supervised for a certain amount of time?

Or do we have any data that shows that children who report to

an evening reporting center in fact do better than those who do

not? And if so, do we know what it is that happens there that

causes this?

The 89 percent of the youth who have gone through this Department of Mental Health program, does something happen there that

you can point to that shows that, if you go through that, given the

circumstances I posit, you will reduce criminal activity and juvenile

delinquency?

I am trying to figure out what ‘‘continuum of care’’ means, as you

are beginning to implement it, and its effects, or its early effects.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Do you want me to take the first shot at that?

So far, what I have seen is that the families seem to be falling into

sort of three bundles. There are some families in which they are

very actively involved in their kids. They are coming up to the facility. They want to help; they want to know what they can do.

There are some families that are just not in the picture at all,

and there is no possible way we could consider, at least now, sending the kid back there. There are a lot of drugs in the home; there

is criminal behavior.

And then there is a whole bunch of people in the middle for

whom I think the Department has consistently done a very poor job

of, A, reaching out to them to get their opinion about what should

happen and, B, supporting them when they are out there.

So some of those folks we believe can be brought in; sat down at

a table with their kid and all the professionals with all the letters

and numbers after their names; and create a program for that kid

that meets the family’s needs, the young person’s needs, and the

need for society to be protected.

99

When Child and Family Services did that, they were able to

bring a large percentage of mothers; families; and even 70 percent

now of the family team meetings they hold has either the kid’s father, or a member of the father’s family, showing up at these family team meetings to do case planning.

When you do that, then you have more buy-in into what this

plan is going to be. Because after all, the kid is going to live with

their family for the rest of their lives.

Now, multi-systemic therapy is a good example of a program that

then tracks the kids closely. I mean, not once a week we are going

to see this kid; not even once a day; multiple contacts a day with

the kid and their family, to make sure things are going OK at

home, to make sure——

Ms. NORTON. So there is somebody who is in touch——

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Multiple times, with a pager, 24——

Ms. NORTON. Are these children who have already committed a

crime?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Yes, we only get kids—well, there are two parts

of what we do. But the parts that the Judges were just talking

about are when we get kids committed to us. That means that not

only have they committed a crime, but they have been essentially

tried and convicted and sentenced to us.

Ms. NORTON. I would just like to suggest that some kind of control study be done. If this works, it will be very important to know.

And nobody will believe anything we say, unless we show in the

only way you can show something; which is, ‘‘These are kids who

didn’t come, or who weren’t involved, and these are kids—’’ I am

just very interested in the contact approach—the contact approach.

If we put people on probation who have committed crimes, adults,

and we say we have to keep contact with them, I don’t know why

we wouldn’t say the same for the children.

I also want to say that, with respect to the parents—and I don’t

have any doubt that there will be parents, two-family parents, extended families, that will say, ‘‘Oh, my God, thank you, somebody

is going to help me with this kid.’’ But you know what? If you are

talking about certain communities in D.C., that family is almost

powerless to ward off the influences in that community.

I have constituents who say, ‘‘This is a terrible thing to do to my

child, but you know what? The child can’t go out.’’ This child has

to come home from school; essentially, is locked in. Of course, this

child is an outcast when he goes out. But this mother would rather

have that than have the kid out on the street, just in the front.

So this is very difficult, what you are trying to do, because you

cannot change the environment in which this child is going to live.

But I am very interested in it, because if it works, that is the kind

of thing that we ought to be able to show works, get money for.

Increasing, for example, the drug court: when it was shown that

people came into drug court with one offense, and then that tended

to mitigate further offenses, now it is very popular.

Judge Satterfield, I have to assume that must be how juveniles

are handled in the D.C. courts. Is that the case? And does it work?

Does it work when you give a child over to a priest or to his grandmother, does it have an effect of reducing moving the child on to

other parts of the criminal justice system?

100

Judge SATTERFIELD. Let me assure you that when we place children on probation, that they are supervised by a probation officer,

who routinely meets with the family, goes out and checks on the

curfews and so forth. And that is why we know very quickly if they

are violating certain conditions. And if we know that they are out

violating curfew conditions and other conditions, they may be out

in the street doing other things that they are not supposed to be

doing. And so we assure that.

Ms. NORTON. And then you report that to the District, because

you can’t do anything?

Judge SATTERFIELD. No, the probation officers who work for the

court report it to the judge, or the Attorney General’s office, who

will file papers in order for the judge to get involved again to determine whether or not probation should be revoked or other conditions need to be placed. So we have that ongoing.

And as I said before, we always try to involve a parent. Every

one of these kids needs a grownup. It doesn’t have to be the father

or the mother. It has to be some type of grownup, some type of

guardian. We have to involve that. Many of our children are children of men who have gone to jail, so they need to be mentored

while these men are in jail.

Ms. NORTON. So who does that?

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, I know that CSSC is starting to work

on a program, that they are going to be mentoring some of the children, kids who go to jail. And our Court Social Services, we are

going to have them involved in that, because we ought to see some

of these kids.

Ms. NORTON. So there is not a systematic program yet; for example, seeing that a male child has a male somebody there?

Judge SATTERFIELD. We can provide mentors now, but we are

looking for a stronger mentoring type program that can hit every

kid.

Ms. NORTON. So who is doing that? Mr. Schiraldi, is that your

job? I mean, whose job is it?

Judge SATTERFIELD. I think it is all of our jobs. I think it is our

Court Social Services for Children that are on probation——

Ms. NORTON. Yes, but who is doing it? If it is everybody’s job, it

is not going to get done. Many of these are young male children,

and the only male role models they have are thugs. Now, somebody

has to be responsible for saying, hard as it is—they don’t have to

live in the District; I don’t care where they live; I don’t care what

their color is—but there is going to be a male role model for every

child like this. Whose job is it to see to that?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Both of us. And both of us are doing it, I think,

right now. We just used a Federal grant from OJJDP to issue an

RFP for $1 million worth of mentoring programs. The Peaceoholics

who criticized us in the Post on Sunday have applied for that. And

even though they said some tough stuff about us, I think they are

probably one of the groups to get it, because they were right.

Ms. NORTON. This is something we are very interested in, in having your point of view. If you got a million-dollar grant to go and

get mentors, and you want to put them with these troubled kids,

then we would like to know what has been—or what is your success in finding them. Because that, it seems to me, is very critical.

101

Let me ask about absconding, because an important part of your

testimony, Mr. Schiraldi, is that there is a 58 percent reduction in

absconding. And I think that would be the main problem that the

people in the community out in Laurel would be concerned about.

Why is there a reduction? What is the cause and effect? Why is

there a reduction of that kind over a 2-year period?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Well, there are a couple of things I want to clear

up. One is that escapes, there haven’t been any escapes. I mean,

2002 was the last time we had an escape——

Ms. NORTON. Well, excuse me. I thought absconding was escapes

were——

Mr. SCHIRALDI. No, that is why I just wanted to clear that up.

So the people in Laurel should feel good about the fact that there

hasn’t been an escape in several years.

Ms. NORTON. So there have been no escapes since when?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. 2002.

Ms. NORTON. This is very important.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. So there has not been a single escape from Oak

Hill sine 2002?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Correct.

Ms. NORTON. OK. What is ‘‘absconding?’’

Mr. SCHIRALDI. ‘‘Absconding’’ means running away from a group

home, or running away from home when you are supposed to be

there; you know, not being where you are supposed to be.

Ms. NORTON. So that would be in the District of Columbia, or

maybe in a foster home?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Well, you know, kids sometimes get placed into

residential treatment centers that are in other States but, by and

large that is, you know, the people running away from our programs.

Us, the Police Department, and Court Social Services, which is

the probation department for the courts, have all set up absconders

units several years ago. And I think a large part of why it went

down is because those absconders units are doing their job.

Ms. NORTON. So you have the escapes? This is in your testimony?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Yes. My original testimony? Oh, the escapes? No.

Ms. NORTON. Why? For goodness sakes, that is important to put

in the record. Because I think if there had never been any escapes

from Oak Hill, I don’t think you would have heard the kinds of concerns you hear today. And of course, what you are saying about the

kinds of facility you are going to build is important to hear.

Could I ask about court-ordered limit? You have a court-ordered

limit?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Correct. It is 188.

Ms. NORTON. And what do you do if you reach the court-ordered

limit?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Pay fines. I mean, if we exceed the court-ordered

limit, we pay fines. And we were paying them up until March. Or

I shouldn’t say we were paying them; we were accruing them up

until March.

Ms. NORTON. Because there is just no place to put a child who

commits a serious crime, except Oak Hill facility?

102

Mr. SCHIRALDI. I think there are a lot of issues. I mean, I think

Judge Satterfield talked a little earlier about case processing times.

Case processing times aren’t only an issue for the court; they are

an issue for us.

A lot of kids’ cases were just sort of sitting around. There wasn’t

either enough staff to get them placed, as we said earlier, or the

staff weren’t moving quickly enough. I don’t know which, and I

don’t really even care at this point. Because what we have done is

we have fixed it. And we have said, ‘‘Look, if it takes 180 days to

get a kid into a residential treatment center, none of that time

counts. When that kid shows up at that residential treatment center, he or she is still spending the same amount of time, whether

they got there the next day or 180 days later. Hurry up! Get them

in there in 90 days. It doesn’t change anything. It is all just dead

time that the kid is waiting.’’

So just by getting people to do their jobs more quickly and more

efficiently, we have been able to reduce the population. That is

what they found in the JDAI sites in lots of different places, as

well.

Ms. NORTON. So there were places for these children to go——

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Yes.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. But there was bureaucracy?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Yes, it was just paperwork, it was sitting

around——

Ms. NORTON. So now how long does it take?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Well, I don’t know. We have substantially reduced the length of stay awaiting placement. I don’t know the exact

numbers, but I can get them to you, Congresswoman.

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you about something we have hardly

heard any testimony about. You know, I think if the facilities, however inadequate, provided something in there that the child could

take away, there would be less concern about the facilities and

their deterioration.

So I have to ask you about what kind of education—there is

nothing that keeps us from educating a child in this facility at least

to the level we educate them in the D.C. public schools. So I have

to ask you, what education services or job readiness services are

provided? And what has been the success or failure of these services?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. D.C. Public Schools run the schools at both Oak

Hill and the Youth Services Center. And the University of the District of Columbia is contracted to do a variety of vocational services, from computers, to car repair, woodworking, a bunch of things

like that.

We intend to bid out the educational services as an RFP that

would allow the schools to compete, but also allow a variety of, I

think, very innovative charter schools like—well, I don’t want to

name them, because then I don’t want to prejudge the bid. But you

know, there are some pretty interesting folks out there who I think

would do some exciting work with the kids.

One of our biggest problems isn’t just the education that goes on

inside, but it is the sort of transfer in and out. These kids, by the

time they get to us, the schools are so fed up with them—because,

look, they are not just little darlings that need a hug, right? They

103

have problems, and they have been a pain in the neck in school for

a very long time.

Ms. NORTON. So what is the average time they spend at Oak

Hill?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. The kids are spending somewhere between 9 and

18 months, the ones that are staying there as committed. So the

schools are pretty fed up with them. They don’t really want them

back real quick.

Ms. NORTON. So you would almost have to tutor kids who are

only there for that amount of time, because they must have very

different levels.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Yes, I tell you, interestingly enough, the kids

pick up often a grade or two, just because we have them physically

in class, and they hadn’t been physically in class before. So sometimes, just by virtue of being there, they are picking up some grade

levels.

But coming back out is often a difficult transition. And I think

that if we had a charter school that could do a good job educating

them in, and then help reacclimate them on the way out, so they

don’t get sort of stuck back in a school where they had already

failed, I think we would see a lot fewer of them run away, and a

lot fewer of them fail.

Ms. NORTON. Judge Hamilton.

Judge HAMILTON. Well, I would like to add to that, though, that

one of the good things—if not the only good thing—at Oak Hill is

the school. The school does a good job. And I would hate to see that

change as a result of some outsourcing to some other facility. Everybody agrees that the educational system provided by DCPS at

Oak Hill is doing an excellent job.

Ms. NORTON. Boy! Thank you for putting that in the record.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Can I add something to that, though, Congresswoman Norton? It is just not about case processing that slows

a child moving through the process. I mean, there has to be some

service capacity in the place where the child is to go.

And there are some children that have to receive services while

in a secure facility, for safety reasons. And so you don’t just need

a school that works well, which it does, but you need other programs, like drug treatment, and whether it is sex offenders and so

forth. Because the children will be released—as they should—and

some have to have this done not in the community, but in a secure

facility.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Schiraldi, can you assure this committee that

the children who are being detained are being held separately from

children who have been committed at Oak Hill?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. They are not being held separately at present. At

present, we have a mixed facility, in which there are detained and

committed kids in the same place. I wish I could assure——

Ms. NORTON. I know they are in the same building, but that is

not my question.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. OK.

Ms. NORTON. My question is if they are in the same building, but

very different statuses. Are they just all lumped together so that

one group can, if you forgive me, contaminate the other?

104

Mr. SCHIRALDI. I wish I could assure you that the kids who are

on detained and committed status never have contact with each

other out there. I wish I could tell you that. But they go to the

same school, they play on the same football field——

Ms. NORTON. And that has to be? I mean, the number of detained children and the number of committed children—I forget the

numbers. What are they?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. We have about 80 of each at Oak Hill right now,

and an additional 60——

Ms. NORTON. So you couldn’t educate them, for example, separately?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. It is a little difficult because, remember, you

have one school building. So to do it, we would have to essentially

cut the school day in half. And we don’t want to do that. We want

them both in, all day. So very often, they are both in the same

school.

We have one football team. Kids play on it who are on detained

status; kids play on it who are on committed status. You know,

there is just one lunchroom. So we do shifts.

There are two units that house kids who are only detained, and

two units house kids who are only committed. And one unit houses

both, because some of those kids are in protective custody, or they

have illnesses, and we don’t have two protective custody units.

So all I am saying is, I don’t want to lie to you. We keep them

apart as much as we can. But sometimes, because there are so few

of them up there, they are mingled.

Ms. NORTON. Judge Hamilton, you and Judge Satterfield know

more about this than I do. But, see, my concern is with some kid

who is there being detained, and may not be on his way to a life

of crime; and some older kid, who is the only person to imitate,

takes you right there. So I am not suggesting I have the answer

to it. I am very concerned about it.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, they should be separated. And that is

what the purpose of the Youth Services Center is for. It is an 80-

bed facility.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, and we have 80 out there. And still, we have

80 at Oak Hill.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. But we have another 65 at the Youth Services

Center. So we have about 140 or so detained kids.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, well, I mentioned that in my opening statement, that D.C. has really moved—it seems to me, appropriately—

with those. But that looks like about half of the kids. I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be someplace else in the District.

What kinds of crimes are the detained children accused of?

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, it can be anywhere from drug possession, if they have repeat offenders, or there is no one in the home

to supervise them, to murder. I mean, so it could be the continuum

of charges.

Ms. NORTON. So are at least the most serious ones out at Oak

Hill? I mean, do you divide up the ones who are detained in the

District? How do you do that? How do you decide which ones ought

to be sent to Oak Hill who are detainees, and which ones ought to

be sent to our state-of-the-art facility right here on Mount Olivet?

105

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Generally, it is more about how long they are

staying. The facility on Mount Olivet Road is a good facility. It is

a nice place, in terms that it is new, it is not deteriorated. But

there is no outside recreation area. And if the kids are there longer

than a certain period of time, they just start to go nuts, because

there is no place for them to be. So after a certain period of time,

we like to get them out to Oak Hill, so at least they have someplace

to run around every once in a while.

Ms. NORTON. I see your dilemma. And, you know, I am not trying

to micro-manage this. But you know, we go from one dilemma to

another. It is terrible. And the only way, of course, is what you all

are trying to do; which is to keep kids from getting in there in the

first place.

I do want to ask Chief Ramsey a question. This is another point

of clarification. Because Chief Ramsey says in his testimony, at

page 2, that because of the way the juvenile justice system is structured—for very good reasons, for the most part—his officers do not

have access to some information that might be considered critical.

Now, he says he is not interested in all their social files. And he

names some things that you might not want to have an officer have

access to; I mean, what their juvenile history is. But then, he

names others, other things such as curfews, stay-away orders and

the like, which apparently his officers also don’t have access to.

So I guess my question is, what is the effect of not having this

information? Would any harm be done if at least some of this information were available to officers? If a child was violating curfew,

might that not be the place to stop them, when there is an officer

who knows that; rather than wait until the court, Judge

Satterfield, has to get him, or somebody else may in fact detain

him for something more serious? So would you describe whether

anybody has looked at that matter?

Judge SATTERFIELD. Could I just clarify the record in terms of information sharing? Because the City Council took another look at

confidentiality just this past year when they enacted the Juvenile

Justice Act. And so they looked at those things.

Some of the things that Chief Ramsey is looking for—like detention status and, if we are holding them, where they are being

held—that is not part of the social files. In the social file we put

in the psychological information, and so forth. Any restrictions on

him getting this is, obviously, by law. They looked at it.

In terms of release conditions, in terms of stay-away orders, in

the new bill that was passed recently, they permitted the Attorney

General’s Office to share that information with the victims, or the

alleged complainants in the case. There are provisions in the law

that allow for law enforcement personnel to receive information

when necessary to the discharging of their duties.

Some information is provided only through an application. I review every application that comes in, and I don’t get applications

from law enforcement.

In May 2004, Chief Judge King issued an administrative order

indicating that the OAG, the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, the U.S. Attorney’s Office,

and the police department, can share information when there is a

custody order outstanding about a youth.

106

Now, I know he wants other information: where they are going,

how they are moving. That information, some of that is held confidential by the statute, unless there is a custody order outstanding.

In the case that they are referring to, the Merritt case, there

were custody orders outstanding. And that administrative order allows for the free flowing of information in order to execute that custody order.

Ms. NORTON. What is a custody order?

Judge SATTERFIELD. I am sorry. It is a bench warrant. It is a

warrant to arrest a juvenile.

Ms. NORTON. Oh, yes, well, now that the kid has committed—or

is accused of committing—a crime, we can share some information?

Judge SATTERFIELD. No, when he runs away, absconds from

home or whatever, the people come to the court, the agencies come

to the court and ask for a custody order, so that law enforcement

can know that he is out on the run. They stop on a traffic stop or

something like that; this order is in the system. They can look it

up, and realize that, and take him back.

Ms. NORTON. OK. That is not automatic, though?

Judge SATTERFIELD. No, they have to petition the court for custody orders. And they often do it, and we issue them within a day

that they make the petition.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Schiraldi, obviously, somebody has to go to another bureaucratic step. Here is a kid absconding; we want to get

hold of him. But somebody has to do the next bureaucratic step in

order for the cops, who might help you get him, to even know he

is absconding?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. I mean, I think the request for a warrant, if you

will, is more than just a bureaucratic step. I mean, the judges do

usually give them out, pretty quick.

I think, first of all, the administration needs to have an in-house

conversation about this. The Mayor is going to be, I think, looking

at this issue. And we have all got to get together in a room and

talk about it. The legislation that changed that the Judge was just

talking about really only went into effect in the spring. I don’t

think we know what we can do even under it so far.

And you know, I don’t think this issue came into play very deeply in the case that ran in the Post on Sunday, as the Judge just

pointed out.

But you know, there are a lot of people out there—Senator Simpson; you know, Judge Walden; Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell;

Bob Beaman, Olympic gold medalist—plenty of people, if we knew

about their violent felony convictions—which all of them had when

they were kids—they might not have become senators and Olympic

gold medalists.

Ms. NORTON. Well, you know, just a moment. Nobody is—and

you know it—nobody here is saying that one ought to publicize; nor

was the Chief saying that. He was talking about something that I

would ask you to look into. And I can understand that when a child

absconds there is a warrant.

But since you are doing a whole new juvenile justice system, and

since some more automatic way of knowing about a child being on

the loose could be helpful in keeping this child from going further

107

in the system, it might be worth looking into, to see if there is a

more flexible way to make that very limited—some very limited information; we would all have to get together to decide what that

information is.

I would ask that be done, and that you report to this committee—let’s give you 6 months, because you are talking about a new

law—how you have facilitated that.

The chief wanted to say something.

Chief RAMSEY. Well, I just wanted to talk about the informationsharing issue. Custody orders, we get the information on that. The

issue that I have is that, when you get youngsters that are released

from Oak Hill for violent offenses or for repeat offenses—you know,

been locked up for auto theft or UUV for seven or eight times, that

sort of thing—they go into a group home. And we are not given information as to who they are, what group home they were put in,

and so forth. We don’t know who is in these homes.

And when you wind up with situations where all of a sudden you

get an outbreak of robberies or auto thefts or whatever, and you

are trying to figure out what it is that is going on, it is very difficult when people are being reintroduced into the community and

you don’t know.

We are not looking for a lot, but I don’t think that it is asking

too much to at least have the name of the individual who was in

custody for robbery that has been released and put in a group

home in somebody’s neighborhood; so if there are crimes committed

and so forth, that we have access to that information.

Now, the law maybe would say one thing, but the AG’s office has

clearly told us we can’t have access to that, and we have had conversations around it. There is obviously some confusion around

what we can and cannot have.

And again, we are talking about the youth that have been committed, if there are any particular conditions at the time of their

release, if they should be back into the group home by a certain

time or, you know, stay away from certain areas or people or whatever. It is good to know, so that we can make sure that they are

staying consistent with whatever those terms are.

Ms. NORTON. Very touchy issue. I don’t dare make a recommendation on it; except I know the presumption has to be that

this is a child, and whatever we do, we have to make sure this

child is treated as a child, instead of branding them so early that

he says, ‘‘What use is it? They already are calling me a criminal.’’

So we begin there.

But unless a system like this begins—and here, I am not talking

about the District, alone. The reason that you see legislators going

to penalties that are outrageous for children is because those of us

who believe in a system for children, for children, haven’t found

ways to meet some of the concerns that, on balance, really don’t

interfere with confidentiality.

So I would really ask very much for that to be done, or else we

are going to find—you are trying to move people back into our

neighborhoods. You know, if in fact you could say that there are

special ways in force to make sure that such children do not get

into trouble again, you will not have every ANC commissioner in

the city telling you ‘‘NIMBY.’’

108

So I mean, it has to be faced, because you have an order that

has to move many of these children back to neighborhoods, and nobody ever wants such a child. And the more you can say about

what you have done, while safeguarding the privacy of the child,

the family, and his identity as a child, while saying to the community that the cops know certain minimal things, or that the juvenile justice system knows it, the greater, it seems to me, ease you

will have in moving people back.

I only have a couple more questions. Just let me ask this notion

about the NSA and the buffer zone. I love notions of ‘‘win-win.’’

That is why I like what Mr. Cardin is doing. You know, he is a

good neighbor. He is trying to think of a way to satisfy his constituents, while keeping in mind our concerns.

And your testimony, Mr. Schiraldi, talked about our needing only

25 acres out of 800.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. I think it is 888, is the exact number of acres.

Ms. NORTON. Again, you know, everybody understand how this

got done: it is the Federal Government that said, ‘‘This is where

you go on this 800 acres.’’

I just said to Ben before he went to vote—taking my vote along

with him, such as it was—[laughter]—I just asked him, you know,

the way we do things in the Congress is almost always incrementally. Would there be any reason not to do the 25-acre buffer zone,

and then move on as we find the wherewithal to the other issue?

Is there any reason why those 25 acres—they must be talking

about acres close to their own perimeter—couldn’t be simply turned

back to them?

Mr. SCHIRALDI. No, in fact, if you look at the map, the buffer

zone they want is where Oak Hill—where the current locked facility is now.

Ms. NORTON. Oh.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. So I think that in some respects, even though

that is not an immediate solution, in some respects for us it is the

best place to give up, because we are almost definitely not building

there.

Ms. NORTON. So we are tearing that down.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. No, I mean, we have to build something first.

Ms. NORTON. Right.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. But once we build that, we don’t——

Ms. NORTON. But we are not necessarily building that close to

the NSA facility.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. No, if we are smart when we do our negotiations,

if we are able to come to some consensus around this, we will specifically pick the site that is least convenient for NSA—you know,

I mean, least convenient for them to want, most convenient for

them not to want.

Ms. NORTON. I think you have moved us forward on that.

Finally, Judge Hamilton, I didn’t quite understand. On page 5 of

your testimony, you brought to our attention a concern you have

about the transfer of more children out of the juvenile justice system into the adult criminal system; and that even after your commission report.

Judge HAMILTON. Right.

109

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would elaborate on it, and why you

think that happened, and why you are against it.

Judge HAMILTON. Well, the law was relaxed so as to give to the

city the benefit that certain persons who were charged as juveniles

for purpose of a transfer hearing were not capable of being rehabilitated. So these children would go into that hearing with the presumption against them, that they could not be rehabilitated. And

it would be up to the children, of course with the assistance of their

lawyer, to overcome that presumption.

And really, the presumption, if there is a presumption—there

need not be any presumption, but if there is a presumption, the

presumption should be that they are capable of being rehabilitated.

So the purpose of the amendment was to make it easier to get

transfer determinations from the court, to permit these children to

be transferred into the adult criminal justice system.

Ms. NORTON. Is there any age limit on that?

Judge HAMILTON. Yes. Yes, there is an age limit on it, but given

the age limit, if the child falls within the parameter of the age

limit, then the child has to overcome, if he is referred for transfer.

Ms. NORTON. Now, how do they know whether the child deserves

a presumption of incapable of rehabilitation? How is that done?

Judge HAMILTON. It is just automatic, by operation of law.

Ms. NORTON. Is that Constitutional? Doesn’t somebody have to

show it, or something? Or is it by operation of the crime the child

has committed?

Judge HAMILTON. It is by operation of law. If the child is referred

for transfer, then that child is presumed, for the purpose of that

transfer hearing, not to be capable of being rehabilitated. And that

was one of the major concerns in our recommending that no such

presumption be applied to a child.

And so, but notwithstanding our recommendation, that is a part

of the present law. And that will have the effect of moving more

children out of the juvenile justice system, and into the adult criminal justice system.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. I just want to say how helpful all of your testimony has been. And to the extent that we have

seemed befuddled by some of what we have heard, or on my part

appeared to have been critical of parts of our system, it is not because the answers are apparent to me. I think you have a very,

very hard job. And I just want to assure you that I know I speak

for the chairman when I say that we stand ready to be helpful.

One of the reasons I want the controlled study is if there is a

controlled study that shows that, for example, the kinds of things

you are doing in continuum of care work, then that is the kind of

thing I would be willing to try to get extra money for.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Great.

Ms. NORTON. Again, I want to thank all of you for coming, and

for this very helpful testimony. And this hearing is adjourned.

110

Judge SATTERFIELD. Thank you.

Mr. SCHIRALDI. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter and additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

111

112

Æ